THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PW CARPARKS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-3024

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PW CARPARKS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-3024 15 August 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2006-404-3024BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Plaintiff AND PW CARPARKS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 15 August 2006 Appearances: A Pell for Commissioner V Fletcher for defendants Judgment: 15 August 2006ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUESolicitors: Adam R.A. Pell, Inland Revenue Department, P O Box 76-198, Manukau Counsel: Vibeke Fletcher, P O Box 130, Auckland[1] The parties have come to an agreement on this matter which covers all of the applications for orders staying proceedings and restraining advertising. There are two the companies not affected by the general arrangement and I will deal with them first. The first is One Hobson Street, that company went into voluntary liquidation 11 August 2006 and no orders are required in respect of that matter; apart from an order for disbursements and I direct that disbursements are to be paid by the company in liquidation as fixed by the Registrar. The other company is Victoria Park Limited (CIV2006-404-3014). In that case the Commissioner has agreed to withdraw the substantive proceedings. Again an order for disbursements is sought and made in the same terms. [2] The remaining eight companies have come to an arrangement with the Commissioner. Implementation of that arrangement apparently depends upon the sale of property. Adequate time is required for that to be dealt with and the parties have agreed that settlement must occur at the latest on 13 October 2006. The question is, what is to happen to the proceedings pending settlement? Should the proceedings now be struck out or should they be adjourned? Mrs Fletcher contends for having the proceedings struck out or dismissed and Mr Pell opposes that cause. [3] Unless the parties had agreed to the contrary it seems to me that common sense in these circumstances favours keeping the proceedings alive. If there is no advertising there should be no additional hardship to the companies. If on the other hand settlement is not completed and the proceedings have been struck out there will duplication of effort and additional Court proceedings will have to be started up in order to accommodate the Commissioners renewed claims. I cannot believe that that is in anyone's interest. Accordingly I am going to adjourn the liquidation proceedings in respect of the eight companies. At the present time I do not have a date and the Registry is to diary the matters for a liquidation date not before 7 November 2006 and is to advise the parties. That date is to be a liquidation list day. _____________ J.P. Doogue Associate Judge